A new wave of creator videos promoting AI platform Higgsfield has triggered a sharp response from parts of the filmmaking community. The issue is not only whether AI can generate eye-catching footage. It is whether creators known for human craft can endorse generative AI without losing trust from the people who follow them.
Over the past few days, prominent filmmaking content creators including Matti Haapoja and Sam “Kold” Kolder posted videos demonstrating Higgsfield and its recently added Seedance 2.5 functionality. The videos describe the tools as a major part of the future of video production, but that message has not landed cleanly with everyone watching.
The Videos Put Higgsfield In The Spotlight
Haapoja’s video presents Higgsfield and Seedance 2.5 through a practical, promotional lens. It explains how Cully Hill Boys, Higgsfield’s feature-length film, was produced with prompts. That film stars AI-generated duplicates of YouTubers Mikyle “N3on” Rafiq and Matt Kiatipis.
Haapoja also shows AI-manipulated footage of himself placed into different sci-fi settings. The result is a demonstration of how the platform can mix a real creator’s image with generated environments and scenes.
Kolder’s video takes a different route. Titled “AI is replacing me,” it begins with his background in video production, then shifts into a fictionalized story in which he explores Mauritania with the help of a robot. Like Haapoja’s video, it combines footage of real people with AI-generated imagery that viewers found noticeably uncanny.
Both posts position generative AI as a powerful filmmaking tool. But for creators whose reputations are tied to taste, effort, and visual craft, that framing creates a difficult tension. The audience is not just evaluating a product demo. It is also judging what the endorsement says about the creator.
Why The Backlash Escalated
The reaction intensified after other creators started sharing what appeared to be screenshots of partnership offers from PR firms working on Higgsfield’s behalf. That led fans to believe Higgsfield was trying to use creators to raise its profile and build public goodwill.
Haapoja’s and Kolder’s videos are not labeled as ads. The creators and Higgsfield also did not respond to The Verge’s questions about whether the posts were paid partnerships. Even without that confirmation, the videos felt to some viewers like advertising for Higgsfield.
That perception matters because creator trust is built on a different foundation than traditional advertising. Audiences often follow creators because they see them as people with judgment, taste, and values close to their own. When a post appears to promote a company or technology that viewers dislike, the reaction can become personal quickly.
In Kolder’s case, the caption for the video appears to contain what looks like an affiliate link, offering a 30 percent discount on an annual Higgsfield subscription. That detail added to the impression that the video was not just creative experimentation, but part of a broader promotional push.
Audience Responses Were Not Uniform
The criticism was especially visible around Haapoja’s video. On Threads, fans and other creators pushed back, including Marques Brownlee. Brownlee objected to Haapoja comparing generative AI to the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, a DSLR known for making 1080p full HD shooting more accessible to independent filmmakers.
Brownlee’s point was that the comparison leaves out a central difference. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II was a physical tool that filmmakers still had to learn and operate. Generative AI, he argued, is “trained on real human-made material without any credit.”
Kolder’s YouTube comments were more mixed. Some viewers praised the video with lines like “absolute cinema!” and “amazing transitions!” Others reacted with disappointment, saying “AI defeated our king” or “no AI can replace creative artists.”
That split captures the larger debate around AI video. Some viewers are excited by the spectacle and the speed. Others see the same output as a warning sign, especially when it comes from creators they admired for traditional production skills.
Cully Hill Boys Drew A Different Kind Of Reaction
The response to Haapoja and Kolder has been louder than the response to some of Higgsfield’s other recent creator collaborations. Cully Hill Boys debuted last week without much fanfare, suggesting that viewers may not have had especially strong feelings about the project itself.
Posts from the film’s cast drew a mix of reactions. Some AI boosters cheered Higgsfield on, while others criticized the company as a slop purveyor. But those criticisms were mostly not aimed at the cast.
The distinction appears to be involvement. The cast gave Higgsfield the right to use their likenesses, but they were otherwise not as directly involved in production as traditional actors would be. Haapoja and Kolder, by contrast, posted videos that appeared to actively introduce, demonstrate, and legitimize the product for their audiences.
The Creator Bargain Gets Riskier With AI
Brand partnerships are common across social platforms. The Higgsfield backlash shows that not every category of sponsorship carries the same risk. Generative AI is especially charged because many people view it as a threat to creative labor, credit, and artistic identity.
The same pattern appeared earlier this month when OpenAI invited influencers to a luxury resort in New York for a “Summer Club” retreat. Those creators did not post long videos showing off OpenAI’s tools, but posts about the trip and OpenAI-branded swag were enough to turn off followers.
Companies such as OpenAI and Higgsfield may be able to absorb some negative reaction to their advertising. Individual creators have less room to maneuver. Their ability to get deals comes from the audience they have built, and that audience can pull back when it feels a creator’s values have shifted.
For filmmakers like Haapoja and Kolder, the stakes are especially clear. Their appeal is rooted in human creativity, visual decision-making, and production skill. When they endorse AI tools that some followers see as replacing or devaluing that work, the partnership can make fans question why they invested in the creator in the first place.
The broader lesson is simple: AI creator partnerships do not exist in a vacuum. They arrive inside an ongoing argument about authorship, credit, and the future of video production. For creators, accepting AI money may bring visibility and opportunity, but it can also turn them into the public face of their audience’s discomfort with the technology.